twitter.com/bizmandan:
Once I found out that 21 Jump Street is a movie based on an American TV show from the eighties I was kind of turned off. Most of the time movie remakes of old 80’s TV shows are at best, ok. So to watch an American comedy based on an American show I had never heard of seemed like the worst kind of entertainment, the kind where I am left out of all the inside jokes and references. After watching it however, apart from one particular nod to the fans which I am not going to spoil here, I can confirm that your knowledge of the original show holds absolutely no bearing to your enjoyment of this film.
This film is funny, plain and simple, it’s a funny script delivered by funny actors. The premise is that two rookie cops are given the assignment to pretend to be teenagers at a local high school to uncover a drug distribution network. This set up inevitably delivers some funny situations, such as a teacher having confusing feelings towards Channing Tatum’s character and a particular drug induced scene that is funny on the same levels as the furry wall in Get Him to the Greek. The humour is very broad, ranging from low brow to slap stick to self satire, and everything in between.
For such a low brow comedy, the script, co-wrote by Jonah Hill, is pretty smart and more aware than most films set in high schools. For example our characters are pretty confused when they find out that the school isn’t divided into jocks, cheerleaders and nerds. One of the pupils are gay and no one gives a damn also the popular kids actually care about their future and don’t waste their time bullying people, all of this is very disarming to Tatum’s and Hill’scharacters and leads to a fresh take on the high school dynamic.
Out of the two leads it is surprisingly Tatum who gets the most laughs, maybe because you don’t expect him to be funnier than Jonah Hill, when he delivers lines with perfect comic timing you end up finding it funnier than from someone who you expect to deliver humour, sort of like the queen, break dancing instead of cutting a ribbon.
Although I wouldn’t say this is a classic comedy, it certainly delivers better than most stateside “funny” films, with intelligent writing and jokes on every level, you are bound to find something that you like in this film.
I feel like I start every review of a horror film with this statement, I do not like horror films, I am not a fan and I never will be and I am really not an authority on the subject. But with that said,Cabin in the Woods is the best horror film I have ever watched to this date, taking the crown away from my previous favourite 28 Days Later.
Why is it so good? Because it is self aware, it knows what it is and it knows you know what it is and it uses that to its advantage.
For fear of spoiling this film, I’m going to keep this review nice and short. This is one of those films that is best served raw, the less you know about it the better, try to not even read a synopsis because it will detract from the sublime experience that is this film. I’m trying my best to not spoil this at all in this review because to do so would be a misdeed similar to spoiling The Sixth Sense.
The cast line up is adequate and features a pre-fame Chris Hemsworth, which obviously served as a way for this feature to stick out from the crowd. Luckily, Cabin in the Woods was delayed due to the bankruptcy of MGM and by the time it was released, Thor had already come out and Avengers was just on the horizon serving, to give the film more exposure than it previously would have got.
The true stars of this feature though were in the form of writer Joss Whedon and writer/ director Drew Goddard. Originality would be the word to describe what they bring to this production. Without telling you what the story is; they manage to explain why horror films are the way they are. The directional debut of Goddard is also extremely promising as he seems to have a natural knack of creating terror and suspense without relying on cheap jump cuts and shaky cam.
This film is an absolute master piece and in a sea of mediocre horror cash cows with crappy stories and unskilled people behind the camera, this film stands head and shoulders above the rest. Recommended.
How utterly boring does the title of this film seem? For me it brought thoughts of men in waders, drinking tea from a flask and eating meat paste sandwiches. Maybe it is because I was brought up no where near the sea and I haven’t gone fishing in all my years on this earth but the thought of a film about fishing just seems like an instant low score. A great injustice the title does this film then, as after watching it, I can safely say that Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is easily one of my favourite films of 2012.
The story of this film is pretty much what it says on the tin, a very rich Sheikh loves salmon fishing and he wants salmon in the Yemen, something that is seemingly impossible. Again, I think this sounds like a snore fest, but you would be surprised how much story you can wrap around this original premise.
To my mind I can’t think of a single character in this film that I didn’t find completely likable.Ewan McGregor played one of the best parts I have ever seen him in, dropping his usual sexy charm for the wader-wearing-tea-drinking-meat-paste-sandwich-eating kind of person I was talking about in a previous paragraph. He is delightfully awkward and plays the old dog can’t learn new tricks part so, so well. Of course his part would never be so endearing if the character didn’t have layers, and McGregor hints at his immense dissatisfaction of his life without ever breaking his keep calm and carry on façade. To act with such a delicate touch shows such a mastery of his craft, and I’m sure credit is due to the director as well.
Emily Blunt brings plenty of electric to the production as a confident professional woman. In most things I have seen her in she seems to maintain an almost icy demeanour in her performances but with this part she is as warm and lovely as I have ever seen her.
Amr Waked plays the part of the Sheikh who is the instigator of the whole project within the film. He is wise to the point where you think he could give Yoda a run for his money. He sees fishing as something extremely spiritual and is convinced that bringing salmon fishing to the Yemen will bring nothing but prosperity to his people. You would be hard pushed to find a nicer, warmer and contented leader in the whole of the Middle East, and of course, he is completely likable.
My favourite character has to be the spin doctor played by Kristin Scott Thomas, her ruthlessness leads to some of the films biggest laughs. The character is as sharp and quick-witted with her staff and the Prime Minister as she is with her own kids. Even though she is meant to be the somewhat villain of the piece, she to, is completely charming in her own way and you never feel like you want her off of the screen.
The story takes us to the eclectic vistas of London, the Scottish highlands and, of course, Yemen. Each location is given oodles of love by the cinematographer, giving London it’s metropolitan greyness, Scotland it’s serine solitude and the Yemen it’s exotic sun drenched heat.
The script is not a simple a to b either, thrown into the mix of the narrative are plot points that include broad humour, political satire, romance and even an assignation plot. The story really does take us on a journey both metaphorically and literally, allowing all the characters in the film to be deep, rich, warm and develop into different people by the end of the film.
If I was to make one criticism it would be that the romance aspect of the film does seem to be a little bit predictable and almost seems a little forced. To be honest though I can not think of a film in recent memory where the romance aspect of it wasn’t predictable, can you?
This is a film that you expect to be boring, but it’s not! If you are wondering whether you should watch this, the answer is and unequivocal yes! Absolutely! With a doubt! Highly recommended.
Some would automatically dismiss this film as “just another found footage movie”. I would beg to differ, I think that found footage gets a really bad rap because the medium is so constricting and people are quick to judge the film as a re-iteration of Paranormal Activity or The Blair Witch Project. This is a fair argument, as horror genre producers have favoured this way of making a film in recent years as it is a very cheap and therefore very profitable and low risk way to produce their creations. I would argue though, that the very nature of a restrictive medium forces the film makers to be more creative and resourceful when making found footage and actually use the medium to enhance the film viewing experience.
388 Arletta Avenue is an extremely voyeuristic film and because of this the found footage medium really enhances it. We experience the whole film through surveillance cameras put in place by an obsessive stalker, and when I say obsessive I really do mean obsessive! Though there is nothing sexual about the voyeurism you really do get the feeling that the stalker is getting very turned on by spying on the couple who live at 388 Arletta Ave. this really adds to the creepiness of the stalker character.
Nick Stahl of Terminator 3 fame, pretty much carries the whole film by himself and for that, he should be commended. He portrays his decent into paranoia and eventual madness in a completely believable way and doesn’t over dramatise the performance as so many actors probably would in low budget productions like this.
Praises aside though, this film never becomes more than it actually is, and what it is, is a cheap found footage paranoid thriller. It won’t rock your world like Cloverfield or Chronicledoes but with a run time of less than 90 minutes you will be hard pressed to find time to get bored with the film and even if you do hate it, you have only wasted a little over an hour of your life.
This is a completely predictable comedy drama about the dynamics between men and women and asked the age old question; can men and women be just friends? What Your Sisters Sister has going for it however, is that it gives the illusion that it is not predictable, it is only in hindsight that you realise that it is.
If I was to use one word to describe this film it would be “quiet” or even “tranquil”. The setting of a remote lake house lends its almost deafening silence to the proceedings of the story. Despite the drama that is going on in the narrative you very rarely hear a raised voice, in fact a lot of the dialogue seems to be in whispers and if not in hush tones, usually in very serine conversations.
The interaction between the characters seems to be very natural, almost as though the dialogue is improvised, I don’t know if it was, I haven’t really done my research, but for some reason I found it distracting, I don’t know why but I felt the need for some lines that sounded rehearsed, the improvised feel of the dialogue just made me feel like I was eves dropping in on private conversations. I know that something like this can seem appealing to some movie viewers but whether it is actual improvisation or delivered like that by skilled actors, I don’t know, it just isn’t my cup of tea.
Saying that though, for that very reason I can’t fault the actors who all play the parts. Mark Duplass plays the comic relief and almost seems like a lazy mans version of Jason Segel, I don’t mean that in a bad way, Duplass just seems more down to earth less kooky and completely likable. Emily Blunt had the least interesting character because there were not many layers to her at all, also she had this weird Anglo-American accent that, coupled with the improvised delivery of dialogue, made her seem like she was on a scripted “reality” show Like The Hills or The Only Way is Essex. Rosemarie Dewitt had the most interesting Character by far, all at once you could tell she was deceptive, fragile and relentless all these aspects of her character hidden behind her huge smile that she seems to use to hide what she is really thinking. She is the one that you feel compelled to figure out, she is the one that makes you want to keep watching despite the film having a slower pace than a sloth on a lazy day. It does pay off in the middle of the film when all the secrets and deceptions come out all at once and the characters have to deal with them.
You can tell that this film has had a lot of love put into it, with its gorgeous cinematography shots of the lake and the various different bits of scenery; the look of this film simply defines the autumn. The extended scenes of dialogue that just seem to naturally pour out of the actors are something to behold even if you don’t really like the style.
I can say with out a doubt in my mind that Your Sisters Sister is a labour of love and maybe that is its main problem, maybe the writer/director loved the concept of this film, the location, the look and the dialogue that she wanted to make it last as long as possible. That is well and good, but What you end up with is a film that huffs and puffs all the way to the near end of the film, before everything happens at once and then it seems like we race 100mph to the end and the film is over way before you want it to be. Then after it is all over you realise that you have been fed the usual predictable cliche’s without even realising it, I really don’t quite know how I feel about this film.
You have got to admit it, a Romantic Comedy set during a time of an imminent apocalypse is an interesting concept and perhaps one of the best mediums to explore the human condition. What we have in Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is a wonderfully sweet story about two people that are brought together by the circumstances of the end of days.
For such a bleak subject matter the film feels surprisingly light hearted and almost optimistic.Keira Knightly plays no small part in this with her sunny English charm and keep calm and carry on attitude. Steve Carrel plays his part as the straight man as well as ever. I thinkCarrel is one of the best straight men when he wants to be, second only to Jason Bateman.
The script is superb taking very little time with the set up of an asteroid hitting earth and getting straight on with some surprisingly dark comedy, but even when bodies are flying past the windows as people jump to their deaths rather than face their impending doom, the tone of the film is still kept pretty light. The script explores Carrels’ characters quiet insecurities and humble misery with such a light breezy touch it all seems extremely endearing.
The cinematography is also light and sunny and breezy it seems very much like the town inThe Truman Show, or Pleasantville after the residents become colourful. This really does act to give you a sense of optimism, a sense that the annihilation that the characters face isn’t really that real, that something will happen at the last minute to save every ones lives. Whether that does happen or not is not for me to say as I do try and keep these reviews as spoiler free as possible.
What is interesting to me is that all other disaster movies (not that this is a disaster movie, it is just a movie with an impending disaster) spend all of their time trying to portray to the viewer how utterly hopeless the situation is, where as this film doesn’t even bother, the focus is all on life and how wonderful it is, if you just let it be.
This is one of those humble films that don’t really go anywhere at all, but you don’t really care because you are just happy to be along for the ride. The characters make this film and it is just so utterly sweet that it doesn’t even occur to you that you have just wasted one hundred minutes of your life by watching it.
I love a good time travel movie, out of all of sci-fi it is probably my favourite sub genre. The only thing you have got to admit though is that is has been done to death, almost to the point of the recent trends of found footage films. Refreshing then to see that Looper has taken a unique although, flawed approach to this genre.
Not flawed in the sense that this is a bad movie but in the sense that the temporal mechanics are all over the shop. I hope you will forgive my indulgence in time travel theory for a second, but I love this stuff! To my mind there are two types of causality in time travel, there is the temporal causality loop (The Terminator, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure) and the alternative timeline time travel (Star Trek, Back to the Future Part 2). I personally prefer the temporal causality loop and I think if this was used in Looper
Questionable story mechanics aside the main gimmick of this film was Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing a young Bruce Willis and I’m sure this is what drew most people to see this film.Gordon-Levitt flawlessly impersonated Willis in every mannerism and he really does need to be recognised for character acting of the highest standard. I do have a problem, however with the make-up. In an effort to make Gordon-Levitt look like Bruce Willis, something that no other film in the history of films has ever bothered to do, they make Gordon-Levitt look like a person that has a fetish for blue contact lenses and forehead implants and frankly it is distracting. Gordon-Levitts’ acting is good enough without the make-up, and to cover up his face does him a great injustice. With so much emphasise on the makeup and the quest to make the two lead actors look like each other, you would think that a lot of effort would be made in a sequence where young Bruce Willis “slowly” morphs into old Bruce Willis, nope none what so ever, one shot we have Joseph Gordon-Levitt and in the very next shot with have Willis in a wig. In an age where we can make Richard Nixon come back to life or youngArnold Schwarzenegger appear butt naked in a film he had no part in, you would think that we could make the transition from young to old, a bit more smooth.
Despite things like time travel paradox and bad makeup this still manages to be a great film. What Looper lacks for the pedantic nitpicking side of my brain it makes up for with beautiful cinematography and production design. Looper certainly portrays one of the most believable futures that I have ever seen on film, with everything looking so high tech and modern but at the same time lived in, and worn down, such as hover bikes that just won’t start. The cinematography portrays vast vistas of cityscapes and contrasting farmland, lending another dimension of realism (just because it is the future doesn’t mean that the countryside suddenly disappears).
As previously mentioned the acting in Looper is outstanding especially from Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Emily Blunt plays her part as a hardened mother who lives on a solitary farm quite well. Special mention has to go to Pierce Gagnon, who plays one of the most terrifying characters I have seen in a good few years, he is only a boy but he has such an intimidating look and way about him that you have absolutely no problem believing him as a villain.
Looper may have flaws, but its virtues far out shadow what is wrong with the film, this film looks great, it has a stellar cast that are at the top of there game and most importantly the film feels original and for me that is one of the most important things in cinema today.
Whenever I get round to reviewing classics like this I always really struggle, because let’s face it, these kinds of films don’t need reviewing, everybody knows that these films are classics for a reason. Classics are classics because they ignite something inside of you, something that reignites every time you watch them, whether that ignition is nostalgia, happiness, wonder or sadness it’s these strong emotions that make up the metaphorical fire in our heart that will keep us loving these films for all time. By this definition, It’s a Wonderful Life is very much a Classic.
This film is deeply personal to me, because it was my Mums favourite, when I was younger I had some sort of an immature aversion to anything black and white so I never wanted to watch it with her, until the last Christmas we had together, knowing that this was her favourite film I asked if we could watch it together. We got about half way through before my brother stormed in and we had to turn it off. From what I did watch with her, I thought it was ok, but I didn’t quite get it, it just seemed like a film you would watch on any old Sunday afternoon when there wasn’t anything else to do.
After my Mum died I really wanted to get around to watching it but I still didn’t for a few years partly because I think I was still a little bit sad and partly because you develop traditions at Christmas and sometimes they tend to get in the way (Love Actually I’m looking at you!).
When I finally got hold of the bluray I was very excited to watch it, and insisted that my wife watch it with me as well because I wanted her to experience what it was that my Mum had experienced and what I was yet to experience, I know she was reluctant at first because she has the same aversion to old films as I used to. But she is the best wife ever, so she obviously still made the effort to sit and watch it with me.
I’m not ashamed to say that I started to cry at the last scene of the film, and I am starting to well up a little bit as I type this. The reason being is that I finally knew and I now know why this was my Mums favourite, this film embodied her whole attitude in life.
Just like George Bailey she had not had an easy life, she had not been able to pursue her dreams, and she had to sacrifice everything for everybody that needed her. She dealt with it all by not letting it get her down; being the best person she possibly could be, for every one around her. I don’t think she ever realised it, but my Mum actually had a Wonderful Life, in the same sense as in the film in that without her selfless sacrifices, a whole lot of people would have been a lot worse off.
I’m sure this film lives on in many different people’s hearts because they connect with it on various levels, but this film is a classic to me, because it reminds me why my Mum was my hero, why she was my best friend and why I can only hope to aspire to be close to the kind of person that she was.
I think there is a reason that this particular Charles Dickens story is not only one of the most visited Christmas stories, but probably the most re-done and rehashed story ever, that reason is of course, that no matter what you seem to do with it, it always manages to be a success. This is of course nothing but a compliment to Mr Dickens himself for providing us all with such a timeless Christmas story.
Despite this almost guaranteed box office success, The Muppet Christmas Carol leaves absolutely nothing to chance and sticks to the story as closely as you could hope to do so with the majority of the cast being a bunch of Muppets. Even to the point of directly quoting the book, this gives the story a very genuine feel and balances out the absurdity giving the film a nice subtle level of gravity allowing you to take the story seriously.
The magic of this film is that although it does have an admirable devotion to the source material, it never ever forgets that the audience have to be entertained, and that audience is made primarily of kids and, of course, big kids like me.*ahem*. So with that in mind the poverty presented in the story is charming and picturesque and the ghosts aren’t really scary. This is where any other production would have failed miserably; it is the experience ofJim Henson Productions that enables the film to be filled up with magic, allowing us to experience a laugh at least every two minutes at the same time never detracting from the sober morals and themes of this undying tale.
Another factor that I love about this movie is that the filmmakers obviously know that the people that are going to watch this film are more than likely going to bigger fans of the Muppets than of classic Victorian literature, so the Muppets are cast in roles of characters that still allow them to be themselves. Bob Cratchit is the mild mannered, faintly bumblingKermit: Miss Piggy in psycho mode is his wife; Fozzie Bear owns a rubber chicken factory and there’s much made of the fact that, as narrator, The Great Gonzo isn’t Charles Dickens. This might mean that the big stars of the Muppets get a considerable smaller role than they would usually get in any of their other films, Miss Piggy and Fozzie Bear being the most notable, not getting much screen time at all, but, because of these casting decisions neither the story nor the enjoyment of the Muppet antics are compromised.
The greatest part of all though is Scrooge himself played masterfully by Michael Caine. He is so deliciously evil and spiteful at the beginning of the movie that when he makes the transformation to nice Scrooge at the end it is all the more poignant and contrasting. You would never though in a million years that Michael Caine would have been the man for the job, but after seeing him in this, I want to see him as Scrooge in every single iteration of A Christmas Carol ever! In fact he is so right for the role that the performance almost makes you forgive his singing voice, almost.
This film is everything a Christmas film should be, it is fun, funny very well produced, all the family can enjoy it and it just makes you feel good, and isn’t that what all Christmas films should do for you? Recommended.
Michael Bay really doesn’t care. His first and only sequel since Bad Boys 2 is marked by swaggering confidence, wild excess and a string of bad-taste jokes. Dogs hump each other, robots hump human legs and the camera spends so much time ogling Megan Fox’s torso you start to wonder if it’s being operated by a 13 year-old boy. There are now way too many robots, including one that looks like a jaguar, one that can turn into ball bearings to access high-security areas and one in the form of a Dyson vacuum cleaner.
You can’t say that you don’t get good value for your money, because, just like the last film this one runs for another two and a half hours, god help me! What’s worse is that it’s a case of same meal, bigger portion, with the flaws of the first not only present but accentuated. You’ll be even more hard pressed at the end of this one to remember which robot’s which, few get more than a scene before Bay’s attention goes elsewhere. Even the Fallen, anEmperor figure to Megatron’s Darth Vader, and the title character, seems to only have a brief cameo.
The plot, meanwhile, is as baffling as before, not only bringing back the sodding shrinking cube thingy but throwing in a new thingymajig called the ‘Matrix of Leadership’. It tries harder to be funnier than the first film but is actually less so, despite Shia LaBeouf working his comedy muscles hard and the always awesome Rainn Wilson in a single scene as a rock-star astronomy teacher.
You know when you watch a really good film and it ends and you think “wow, that was pretty good, I wish there was more?” you wish there was more but secretly, if you really think about it, you don’t want more because, you know the good film was probably good because it knew when to restrain it’s self and it knew when it was time to bring the story to a close. Revenge of the Fallen is a film that doesn’t know where to stop, even comic-relief characters get their own comic-relief characters, like the offensively irritating Twins, who bicker in hip-hop slang, or Wheels, a Decepticon who for some reason talks like a ‘30s gangster.
Like I said in my review of the first film the effects are very impressive and they are just as impressive in this sequel, but of course that brings the same problems that I had with the effects in the last film, at times the frame is so packed with whirring cogs and twirling cranks that you could replicate the effect by throwing the innards of clocks at the camera, it probably would have been cheaper. But despite the visual confusion on the screen I still can’t help but been in awe of the talent that must have been required to design these giant robots, there are actually more flawlessly rendered money shots in the last 40 minutes of this film alone, than all the other Michael Bay films put together.
It’s just a shame there aren’t more ideas behind the bells and whistles, the first sequel is meant to be an improvement on the original film, not just more of the same at a higher volume. Since we’re not given much in the way of compelling reasons to root for one computer generated giant robot over another, long before the end of the film the story just starts washing over you, yeah, sure its impressive to look at, but it was impressive to look at in the first film, and now the novelty is starting to ware off quite fast. I wasn’t a fan of the first film but this one has become a mind numbing and tiring viewing experience.
I am of the generation that this franchise is most close to, I grew up in the eighties and I remember having several Transformers toys, I even remember watching the animated movieseveral times with my best buddy bob. However, I don’t remember the story, the characters or much at all about the original eighties cartoon, I think it’s because I was a fan of He-manand Thundercats and I remember them with such great fondness. I think, because of my devotion to the two other major toy-line/ cartoon franchises of the eighties I just didn’t really have room in my life for the Transformers. So I practically went into this film as a newbie.
I don’t know what I was expecting with the combo of a massive budget, giant robots andMichael Bay, but what I should have been expecting and what I got was a fairly determined assault on my senses. I like Michael Bay, being an action fan, but my brain found it very hard indeed to translate what was going on, on the screen into any kind of sense.
Suffice to say it’s not a film for those who seek the solace of art. It is, however, the most straight-up, CG-buffed explosion fest you are likely to see in any film released in 2007. The plot has little concern about dialogue, pacing or even logic all it seems to want to do is to move on to the next scene of ‘Bayhem’. Even amongst the geek-lore of sci-fi the film remains more concerned with laying waste to the scenery than any kind of plausible narrative.
The plot is ludicrous: a box (varying in size from a larger than average building to a handbag) with the power to reconfigure machines into Transformers has ended up on Earth. As, currently, have these opposing gangs of super-robots. First stop is a dumb kid whose great-grandfather’s glasses have the imprint of a map of the box’s location. But why am I trying to make it over complex? Good robots fight bad ones and humans get in the way. The end.
It’s not all bad though Bay has done himself a real favour casting Shia LaBeouf as the excitable loser, about to discover his first car has a big surprise under the hood. He shares the jabber of Woody Allen with Tom Hanks’ steady charisma. Megan Fox is pretty good also, but the way that Bay’s camera laps her up drunkenly, leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable, ok we get it she’s hot! But surely she has more to offer than just her looks?
The special effects have got it going on! The design of the transformers is super complex, as you imagine a race of super machine to be. They gyrate and warp at electric speeds to the satisfying rhythmic clank of metal on metal. In short, the transforming is awesome. The dynamics are intricately detailed, conjuring images of a million sprockets whirring in unison. All their U-turns and spins, skid-stops and take-offs are choreographed into a stunning ballet of impossible motion. Without a doubt these are some of the most impressive CGI effects that I have ever seen.
Unfortionatley, the greatest merit to this film, for me, is also its greatest problem, this is after all an action film, and when you can’t make heads or tails out of the action because the transformers designs are so intricate, it sort of detracts from the point of having the action in the first place.
I am under no illusions at all that this film is just meant to be a bit of fun, it’s just meant to be some big robots beating up some other big robots, that’s fine. But I feel like Transformers is trying to be so much more, by trying to fit in sub plots and character growth and not only do these additions all fall flat on their faces but they also push the run time of the film to two and half hours making it way too long to be “just a bit of fun.”
If this film was about an hour shorter, and slowed the action down to pace where my brain had a chance to fathom what was going on, on the screen I think I could have got on with this film a lot better, but as it stands, despite the amazing CGI, out of all the Michael Bay films I have seen, I would say this is probably the worst.
I think we live in a time where the subject matter of this film is very much in the fore-front of the public consciousness. Yes, unfortunately we live in a time that every Tom, Dick and Harry gets labelled as a child molester if they do anything but deny that kids exist. Of course, a lot of the time, the accusations tend to be nothing more than Rupert Murdock deciding to ruin someone’s life because he has nothing better to put on his front page that day. What is interesting about Hard Candy is that the story plays on that aspect of guilty without trial, because, obviously, the accusations are so heinous that, the accused must be guilty!
Another, more justifiable subject that the media like to bring into the limelight, which is also covered in this film, are the dangers of allowing your little ones to talk to strangers online. There are several well-documented cases of teenagers eloping with their much older internet friends in recent years.
We are literally bombarded with this, frankly, hideous subject every single day, lets face it! It was only a matter of time before someone made a film on the subject. But what was unexpected was the film that was made wasn’t a one sided witch hunt type film with the persecution of a nasty, evil man, that is predictable and as tedious as a tabloid newspaper on a slow news day (Three in four stretch limos ‘put lives in danger’- actual headline from the day I wrote this review) no! The film that we got was actually good! Hard Candy not only tackles this thorny subject matter with expert skill, but also happens to be a powerful, thought-provoking thriller.
Long story short, this is a great film that keeps you on the edge of your seat for a good proportion of it and its all the more impressive given the fact that it’s a two man show (well technically one man and one woman). It’s down to Jeff (Patrick Wilson) and Hayley (Ellen Page) to carry the bulk of the film, with some scenes feeling hopelessly sadistic, inviting obvious comparisons to the completely messed up Japanese horror film, Audition. Wilson is fantastic, but it’s Page who’s the real star, switching effortlessly between naive child and creepy, vengeful woman.
It’s what you don’t see in Hard Candy that makes it so effective. The film’s central scene, involving a spot of amateur surgery, had me crossing my legs and really feeling for the victim, but it is all the more wince-inducing for the fact that you see virtually none of it happening, with the focus instead on the reactions of the two characters. And although Hayley is convinced that Jeff does more with his young fashion models than simply take their picture, we have only her word that he’s the twisted pedophile she claims he is, since no truly concrete evidence of his apparently dodgy behavior is ever shown on screen. This aspect is the crown jewel of the film, because you are constantly trying to figure out who is the bad guy, you find your self sympathizing with the accused character, a character that society would condemn in an instant,
For a film to make your psyche go against your social programming and to think in a slightly different way, is just amazing and without a doubt a mark of a great film. It’s not always easy viewing, but Hard Candy is an intelligent, challenging film which deserves to be seen.
I had heard a lot of hype about this film and was intrigued to see it, but, as I have said in many a review before this one I was not brought up on classic films, I have no idea who SirLaurence Olivier was, of course I know the name, but, at the time of writing this review I am yet to see any of his films in my on going quest to explore the art form that is the cinema. The same goes for Marilyn Munroe, of course, I know a little more about her as she has a cemented place in pop culture as an icon but I am yet to see any of her films. I am confessing these things to you because I want you to know that I am not judging this film, like most people, on the quality of the approximations of the characters but on the film itself.
Essentially this film is about two characters, Marilyn Monroe, who was a movie star who wanted to be a great actress, and Sir Laurence Olivier, who was a great actor who wanted to be a movie star. The idea of two very successful people not really happy because they have the wrong type of success is very interesting to me.
Obviously, as the title of the film suggests, the story revolves around Michelle Williams’ character (Munroe). Of course Williams pretty much nails the face of Marilyn in popular culture but she does a nice job shedding all that we know of the icon and is able to channelMarilyn in private as well, something that we will never really know is completely accurate, but it is certainly believable.
For me though, it’s Kenneth Branagh who steals the show, as actor and director Olivier, he is vain and anxious, his lusty desire for Marilyn quickly turns into hot fury as he has to deal with her chronic insecurities causing her to be constantly absent from the set, keeping other actors like Dame Sybil Thorndike (played by a warm Judi Dench) waiting around for hours. Whenever she does emerge she is accompanied by her Method mentor Paula Strasberg(Zoë Wanamaker), who’s pretencious coaching from the sidelines cranks up Olivier’s rage to an almost visible luminescence. I like to think that this increasing anger within the narrative of the film is not due solely to Munroe (how could you stay angry at her anyway?) but also the growing realization that he’s aging. He’s no longer the young star of British acting, but slowly becoming an old man who not only can’t seduce his leading lady, but can’t even act as well as she does either. These frustrations manifest themselves as anger and ultimately we seeOlivier for who he really is, a man that is just as insecure about himself as Munroe is.
Our protagonist, Colin Clark, played by the fresh faced Eddie Redmayne holds his own and keeps us reasonably engaged with what is by nature the least-interesting character in the movie: the good boy who sees the dark side of himself and others, and comes out of it wiser.
Emma Watson gets a small look in as the wardrobe assistant Colin makes is interested in romantically, until he is distracted by Marilyn’s mini breakdowns, crack-ups and uninhibited charms, poor Emma. She didn’t really bring much to the part and I think she needs to stick to leading lady roles in the future so she is given a chance to flex her acting muscles.
This film is never dull, thanks to the brilliant acting, the engaging screenplay and the pleasure and interest in actually seeing an icon being turned into a flesh-and-blood person. My Week With Marilyn allows us to see through the mystique and start appreciating the iconic figures of classic film history, and that’s something very special indeed.
You know when you see a movie with particular actors in it and you just know that it is guaranteed to be a no-brain kill-fest? I think the producers of Killer Elite were hoping for that assumption from their targeted audience and that is probably why they cast Jason Stathamand Clive Owen, Britain’s hardest blokes, with the exception of Ray Winstone of course. In an almost complete wilderness of good old fashioned action movies that we have had to deal with in recent years, these two actors have historically offered just the right brand of handgun-wielding badassery you expect, nay, demand, from your action genre.
If we are realistic, until Schwarzenegger makes his proper return to the big screen, this type of film is probably the best we are going to get in movies involving awesome feats of professional ass kicking. So if that is the kind of thing that turns you on I think Killer Elite will really float your boat.
This is a solid action flick, one that never falls victim to bad pacing, as, I find, a lot of films of this type do. The stunts and action sequences are nicely shot, and while the action and the fighting could easily become over the top and cliché, the director keeps the insanity down to a reasonable level, with action scenes that are satisfyingly wild, but not intentionally impossible.
Placing the narrative in the 1980s does lend the film a very cool sense of atmosphere. It’s fun to see modern action heroes pitted against each other in a slightly different setting, and it’s done exceptionally well. The production designer either remembered 1980’s England vividly or did an extensive amount of research because it is completely believable with out ever being a distraction. There are no cell phones or GPS devices, and in order to hack a truck’s steering column, the characters use a wood-paneled box covered in red lights and clicking dials. If nothing else, it feels novel.
The cinematography is also something to write home about, while most period films about the ’70s and ’80s photograph everything in a saturated range of yellow and orange filters, Killer Elite uses a cool blue tone to capture the streets of Western Europe, lending an extra note of slickness to scenes already impeccably art directed. I guess it’s those touches that raise a movie like this a notch up from others, that is, if you appreciate style.
Of course if you don’t appreciate how much effort has gone into the look of the film there is always the numerous explosions and fight scenes to keep you happy. Killer Elite feels like it has more testosterone coursing through its veins than a sweaty rugby team after winning a match, drinking foot longs of beer at an all you can eat steak dinner that just so happens to be in a strip club. In other words if crusty bread doesn’t put hairs on your chest, this film certainly will.
I was keen to watch Fast Times at Ridgemont High, because whenever I read anything about a teen high school comedy, Fast Times is always referred to as the template to all the films that followed. Admittedly the genre itself isn’t anything to write home about but, I was extremely curious what the mould that spawned oh so many awful cheap imitations would be like to watch, would it be any good? More to the point, why is it so fondly remembered by a certain subset of the movie going public who saw it when the film first arrived in 1982?
The first thing I noticed about fast times is how many now famous faces were in this film, it is truly amazing! The slew of current day icons include Sean Penn, Nicolas Cage (in a very minor blink and you’ll miss him role) and Forest Whitaker
I was born the year after this film was released so I’m not that far removed from the culture of it but I can see how Fast Times at Ridgemont High is a product of its times, and so may seem hopelessly out of date to a newer generation raised on facebook and other attention deficit disorder producing media, but after seeing it now for the first time some 30 years after its release, the film is still surprisingly engaging and often pretty funny, if undeniably somewhat dated.
While Fast Times at Ridgemont High is very segmented and anecdotal, the anecdotes themselves are filled with little character moments which are fascinating, compelling, and most importantly, emotional. Even the stoned out lunacy of Sean Penn’s character, Spicoli is oddly truthful in its own way, and Penn’s completely amazing performance simply knocks it out of the park with the tiniest moments of insight behind the completely believably intoxicated eyes.
For a comedy the film has a rather serious subtext as the characters of the film find themselves on the cusp of adulthood without all of the necessary tools to effectively make the transition.
The director also deserves major kudos, aided and abetted by a keen cast, many of whom, I imagine, were just beginning their professional careers, the film is able to move swiftly along at a somewhat manic pace that is always stays more or less under control.
Unlike some other films of the time, Fast Times at Ridgemont High has aged surprisingly well. Saturated with some fantastic performances by a group of young people who would go on to pretty much define acting for a whole generation, with some equally strong direction, this is a film with obviously modest ambitions that has transcended it’s modesty and is somehow surprisingly refined and actually rather profound at times.
